"The rule of law is a component of national security"

The normative and legal struggles in a country facing almost
constant terrorism constitute the elements of the core debate in defining the
morals and normative aspirations of Israeli society and maintaining the
nation’s heterogenic character as manifested in its political culture.
Nevertheless, the Israeli Supreme Court has managed to define and protect the
young democracy’s normative standing since its inception, and it continues to
do so even under the political and public criticisms expressed especially by
right-of-center groups.

The Court’s leading voice was its president, Aharon Barak,
who discussed the problem of a democracy facing terrorism over the years. He
noted that terrorism creates much tension among the different elements of the
state: While the elected representatives may wish to take all effective steps
to fight terrorism, even if harmful to human rights, the democratic pillar of
human rights may encourage the protection of the rights of every individual,
including the terrorist, even at the cost of undermining the fight against
terrorism. But even if struggling with this tension is primarily the task of
the legislature and the executive, which are accountable to the people, they
must justify their decision to the judges who are judicially responsible for
protecting the principles of democracy, as Judge Barak put it:

We, the judges in modern democracies, are responsible for
protecting democracy both from terrorism and from the means the state wants to
use to fight terrorism. . . judges meet their supreme test in situations of war
and terrorism . . . If we fail our role in times of war and terrorism, we will
be unable to fulfill our role in times of peace and security . . . I must take
human rights seriously during times of both peace and conflict. I must not make
do with the mistaken belief that, at the end of the conflict, I can turn back
the clock.

As to the centrality of judicial intervention, much debated
in Israel, Barak wrote that the protection of human rights would be bankrupt
if, during armed conflicts, the courts delayed the review of executive branch
behavior until the period of emergency had ended. Instead, the judicial ruling
must convey guidance and direction in the specific case before it.

In Israel, petitions from suspected terrorists reach the HCJ
in real time, while the events being reviewed are still taking place, as in the
question of interrogation by the security services. In general, as long as the
security measures are applied within the alleged framework of the ‘‘zone of
reasonableness,’’ no basis is present for judicial intervention. But ‘‘security
considerations’’ are not magic words; the Court must be convinced that the
security consideration was the dominant one and the measures used were
proportional to the terrorist act. Justice Barak described the process:

In exercising judicial review . . . we do not make ourselves
into security experts. We do not replace the military commander’s security
considerations with our own. We take no position on the way security issues are
handled. Our job is to maintain boundaries . . .We insist upon the legality of
the military commander’s exercise of discretion and that it fall into the range
of reasonableness, determined by the relevant legal norms applicable to the
issue.

Barak viewed arguments against judicial review from both the
left and right as unacceptable. Judicial review of the legality of the war on
terrorism might make waging the conflict more difficult in the short term, but
it could fortify society in the long term. Barak referred to his dissenting
opinion in the case of the pardon given to the heads of the Security Service
(ISA) by Israel’s then-President Chaim Herzog in the 1984 Bus 300 affair. Barak
emphasized the centrality of the rule of law and its power over everyone,
including the state’s security apparatus:

There is no security without law. The rule of law is a
component of national security . . . the strength of the Service lies in the
public’s confidence in it. Its strength lies in the court’s confidence in it.
If security considerations tip the scales, neither the public nor the court
will have confidence in the Security Service and the lawfulness of its
interrogations.

Under a continuous state of emergency since its
establishment, Israel is always a target of terrorist organizations. The need
to deal with security emergencies led the HCJ to realize the importance of
preserving fundamental democratic principles in times of war. Over the years,
it has handed down rulings concerning security issues that restricted the force
that the executive branch could apply, including interrogation methods used
against security detainees or administrative detention.

In Israel, as in other democracies, the ISA’s role in
obtaining intelligence in the struggle against terrorism is far from being a
neutral, professional issue. Society and its institutions are involved, and
they largely direct that sensitive process. The legal tension is always there.
As Michael Ignatieff has pointed out, the secret services and the defense
forces regularly conduct a controversial ‘‘relentless and brutal campaign’’
against terrorists, but inside the country, the campaign must remain under
democratic authorization and judicial review:

Generals publicly question its effectiveness, pilots express
moral and tactical qualms about certain operations, columnists insist these operations
make Israel less, not more, secure, and so on, yet through it all Israeli
democracy is surviving the ordeal

comments

compliments

Omri: "Elder is one of the best established and most respected members of the jblogosphere..."Atheist Jew:"Elder of Ziyon probably had the greatest impression on me..."Soccer Dad: "He undertakes the important task of making sure that his readers learn from history."AbbaGav: "A truly exceptional blog..."Judeopundit: "[A] venerable blog-pioneer and beloved patriarchal figure...his blog is indispensable."Oleh Musings: "The most comprehensive Zionist blog I have seen."Carl in Jerusalem: "...probably the most under-recognized blog in the JBlogsphere as far as I am concerned."Aussie Dave: "King of the auto-translation."The Israel Situation:The Elder manages to write so many great, investigative posts that I am often looking to him for important news on the PalArab (his term for Palestinian Arab) side of things."Tikun Olam: "Either you are carelessly ignorant or a willful liar and distorter of the truth. Either way, it makes you one mean SOB."Mondoweiss commenter: "For virulent pro-Zionism (and plain straightforward lies of course) there is nothing much to beat it."Didi Remez: "Leading wingnut"

ads

disclaimer

The opinions expressed by those providing comments on this website are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Elder of Ziyon. EoZ is not responsible for the content of the comments.

You are legally liable for the content of your comments that you submit to this site.

By submitting a comment to this website, you warrant that we are not responsible, or liable of any of the content posted by you and you agree to indemnify us from any and all claims and liabilities (including legal fees) which could arise from your comments submitted to the site.